Quillinan v. Ainsworth et al
Filing
76
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying Defendants' #50 Motion for Sanctions. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
13
14
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND
REQUEST TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF
VEXATIOUS
v.
RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 50
Defendants.
11
12
Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW
On August 10, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions and requested that Plaintiff
Kevin Quillinan be declared a vexatious litigant. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 50.)
Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution
15
without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below,
16
DENIES Defendants’ motion for sanctions and their request to declare Plaintiff vexatious.
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
The undersigned incorporates the background facts described in the order granting
19
Defendants’ motions to dismiss, which was filed concurrently with this order.
20
II.
21
DISCUSSION
Defendants seek an award of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to recover
22
their attorneys’ fees and costs, and request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. (Def.’s
23
Mot. at 19.)
24
A.
25
Defendants argue that Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by filing a
Sanctions
26
factually and legally frivolous lawsuit. (Defs.’ Mot. at 13.) Rule 11 imposes upon attorneys and
27
pro se litigants a duty to certify that they have read any pleadings or motions they file with the
28
court and that such pleadings and motions are well-grounded in fact, have a colorable basis in law,
1
and are not filed for an improper purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). If a court finds a violation of this
2
duty, it may impose appropriate sanctions to deter similar conduct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1); see
3
also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990) (“[T]he central purpose of Rule
4
11 is to deter baseless filings in district court.”). Whether to award sanctions under Rule 11 is
5
within the discretion of the district court, because the awarding of such sanctions “is an
6
extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1);
7
Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988).
8
9
Here, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and a single cause of action under 21
U.S.C. § 843(c)(2)(A). (First Am. Compl., “FAC,” Dkt. No. 8.) Generally, Plaintiff claims that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
defendants’ alleged marijuana cultivation enterprise resulted in the termination of a month-to-
12
month storage unit lease, which eventually led to him and his wife sustaining a financial loss to
13
their business as a result of having to vacate.
14
Defendants seek to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs expended in defending this
15
litigation, which they claim is an attempt at extortion. (Defs.’ Mot. at 3-4, 6.) Defendants further
16
argue that, by Plaintiff’s own admission, his damages have nothing to do with the alleged
17
racketeering. (Defs.’ Mot. at 14.) The Court agrees, and dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit with
18
prejudice. Notwithstanding, while the Court is concerned with Defendants’ descriptions of
19
Plaintiff’s pre-filing behavior, which, if true, could be grounds for Rule 11 sanctions, civil RICO
20
is complicated, so the Court declines to impose sanctions under Rule 11.
21
B.
22
Defendants request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant for filing this and other
Vexatious Litigant
23
purportedly harassing and frivolous lawsuits. (Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) When a litigant has filed
24
numerous harassing or frivolous lawsuits, the Court has the discretion to declare him a vexatious
25
litigant and enter an order requiring that any future complaints be subject to an initial review
26
before they are filed. District courts have the power to enter pre-trial filing orders against a
27
vexatious litigant under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
28
Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir 2007). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that "such pre-filing
2
1
orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used" because of the danger of "tread[ing] on
2
a litigant's due process right of access to the courts." Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. Nevertheless,
3
such pre-filing orders may be appropriate because "[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process . . .
4
enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the
5
meritorious claims of other litigants." De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.
6
1990).
7
Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has filed 30 lawsuits in state and federal court, 12 of
which were filed in the last seven years. (Defs.’ Mot. at 17.) While Defendants describe several
9
cases in their motion, the Court is unable to evaluate whether the lawsuits were clearly frivolous.
10
For example, Plaintiff’s social security appeal, filed on October 19, 2011, was dismissed, because
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Order Granting Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss,
12
Quillinan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 11-cv-05136-SI (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2012), ECF No. 22.
13
Thus, at least one case cited was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s ignorance of the legal process, rather
14
than for purposefully filing a frivolous or harassing lawsuit. Moreover, in Plaintiff’s declaration
15
in support of his opposition, Plaintiff explains why he dismissed certain cases. (Decl. of Kevin
16
Quillinan, “Quillinan Decl.,” Dkt. No. 57-1 ¶¶ 2-15.) Thus, while certain cases certainly appear to
17
lack merit and could be viewed as harassing, the record is inadequate to support the conclusion
18
that Plaintiff’s filings are so numerous or abusive that they should be enjoined. See De Long, 912
19
F.2d at 1148. The Court notes that additional information could have resulted in a different
20
outcome, so Plaintiff is advised to be more discerning in filing lawsuits going forward.
21
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
22
23
24
25
26
III.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for sanctions and request to declare Plaintiff
a vexatious litigant is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?